Wednesday, July 09, 2014

The following is a piece I submitted to the Boston Herald several weeks ago. Since I say I submitted it, rather than they published it, you know what they thought of it. The general point of it still sticks in my craw, however, so I decided I'd spit it up here.

Before I do, though, I'd like to be sure you know that I don't think of you as just an audience for my rejects. I love you, and think highly of you, because you were here before my meteoric rise to journalistic fame and fortune.

(And you don't deserve sarcasm, either, so I apologize for that. I've been blessed with what I've accomplished so far and you've been a big part of that. I thank you.)

Anyway, here's some second-rate stuff. If you end up with the same opinion as my editors at the Herald, I won't scream and cuss.

****************************************************

Can we agree on one
concrete reality? Donald Sterling is a jerk. Now let's talk theory.

NBA Commissioner
Adam Silver, who fined Sterling the $2.5 million maximum and banned
him from the league for life, did pretty much what he had to do given
the evidence, right? In a league where African-Americans comprise
some 80% of the players, as well as about half of coaches, Silver had
little choice but to hand out the most draconian punishment at his
disposal. Doing otherwise would have led to league-wide player
discontent, even the possibility of a wildcat strike destroying the
current playoffs and costing the league hundreds of times what
Sterling had to pay. There would have been an avalanche of bad
publicity, from which the league might never have recovered. The
message to the sporting public, as well as the world at-large (the
NBA is very much the most global of our major North American sports),
would have been one that said, in effect, the players are chattel;
extremely well-paid, to be sure, but still working under executives
whose opinions and actions are not far-removed from the plantation.
Any black man who chose to take the court, if less punishment had
been meted out, would probably have been seen, by his peers, as a
coward and a sell-out.

Probably all true,
but here's another scenario. I'm not saying it's what I would have
done if I wore Silver's shoes, but it's interesting to consider.

What if Adam Silver
issued a statement to this effect: “While we, as a league, deplore
Donald Sterling's overtly racist comments, and we feel he should be
condemned for such, there is a greater principle at stake here. One
of the foundations of our American way of life is freedom of speech;
the freedom to speak one's mind. Even if the words spoken are
patently offensive to the majority, we hold sacrosanct the right of
our citizens to speak such words. While all in an official capacity
with the NBA would prefer that Mr. Sterling not speak such ugly and
reprehensible words, we feel it is not in the best interests of
society as a whole to make censorship our official business policy.
Therefore, while we want it known, without equivocation, that we
condemn such sentiments, and feel that the expression of same are a
sure sign of little or no moral compass, we feel it is more
important, in the long run, to support the greater underlying
principle of free speech.”

Is it realistic to
have expected such from Mr. Silver? Of course not. Given his
fiduciary responsibilities – and, to give him an easy benefit of
the doubt, his own good moral compass – he said, and did, exactly
what we should have expected (and, I think, what most of us would
have done.) I'm not arguing that Silver was wrong. I'm just saying it
would have been interesting to see what would have happened had he
decided to defend a principle instead of his principal. Is it too
much to believe that some people in far-flung despotic nations might
have taken notice and understood we truly believe in one of the major
freedoms we espouse? Maybe. But, as much as I understand and
appreciate what Silver did, and as much as I deplore what Sterling
said, the experiment would have been interesting.

17 comments:

Not an idiot at all. I didn't follow the story closely (How could I? The myriad of stories/scandals is getting so deep, I can't keep up.) but enough to have an opinion.

My take on the whole thing: I agree with you on this - I think a stronger statement SHOULD have been to uphold the ideal of freedom of speech. I honestly do not think we actually operate under this ideal to it's fullest original intent anymore. Too many people get 'offended'. Who can even know what exactly is deemed offensive and not at this point anymore.

The case as it unfolded sent a very clear message - say something someone else doesn't like? You risk losing everything. That is a dangerous precedent to set forth.

Do I agree with Sterling? 110% absolutely NOT. But I am also adult enough and cognizant enough to consider the source and to also recognize that those statements were made in a PRIVATE CONVERSATION with his girlfriend (that she happened to record...). He was not making them to his team or any other public arena that I am aware. Should there have been some sort of disciplinary action? Possibly to send a clear message that those sentiments aren't representative of the collective whole, but to ban him for life?

I don't know. Just my two cents. I don't share them often. But there you have it.

The Herald missed a golden opportunity. I'm sure the comments on your article would have ranged from hither to yon. And isn't that the whole idea of freedom of speech...and freedom of the press? I imagine your column with this article being published would have garnished a lot of readership and publicity. The Herald dropped the ball on this one. Well said, my friend. Well said.Hugs,J.

I "kind of" followed the whole Sterling/Silver/NBA punishment thing. And while I agree there is freedom of speech involved, one thing to keep in mind is that Sterling was telling his girlfriend not to post pictures of herself with black people on her Facebook page. So the question really is, should freedom of speech supersede another person's moral freedoms?

She had the right to post whatever she wanted on her page. He made it into a racial situation -- and he didn't have to because she also has freedoms and rights that do not threaten or harm other people.

No doubt, Michelle. She had every right to do whatever she wanted, and there certainly shouldn't have been any chastising of her for such an innocent act. Still, I think that's a separate issue. I mean, just about everything we hear about the guy makes him sound reprehensible, but that's exactly what the free speech thing is in place for, to protect the rights of those the majority do not agree with.

Thanks for your take on this. I was actually thinking of you a fair amount of the time while I wrote it. I don't know that it made a difference in what I wrote, but if you picture it like one of those cartoons showing a guy with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other,you were one of them :-)

No matter what is said for or against this, or who says it, racism still lives. And this whole stupid thing makes me very sad. That man is a silly man to hold such opinions, and the girlfriend is just as stupid to make the opinions public, and the media is even worse to make such a fuss.

Of course, I never agreed that what she did was right either. It seemed too planned out -- like she knew he would get angry and say something because he had said it before. Nobody simply goes, "I think I'll tape-record my conversations today for the Hell of it."

I also wondered if there was something else going on. Don't want to seem like the "conspiracy theorist" here, but it all just happened too quickly and too pat for my tastes. Like people were sick of him around so they made him walk into a trap he couldn't get out of. Makes for a good book plot.

P.S.-- thanks for comparing me to the angel/devil conscience image. Yet I could never liked holding that pitchfork and wearing those red horns. Also, that pointed tail made it rough sitting anywhere. :)

I didn't follow any of that, but what it breathes is the lack of freedom of speech, which is the reason why your piece wasn't picked. The media is so dang slanted, people are afraid of stepping on toes, due to being so politically correct. Know one is perfect, and there is prejudice of all types in this world and to deny it is way too ostrich like. If someone does something offensive and they are of color, you have to be darn careful, is that freedom? …

Well anyway, keep writing and don't change a thing.. you're articles are being read, and I would wager a guess that some newspaper readers have probably made their way to your blog page.http://thebarbarashow.blogspot.com I'm back :)

While I'm absolutely for freedom of speech...... I do think we should restrain ourselves from being offensive and racist.Do unto others as you would be done by is a good rule of thumb. In this case, say unto others......

However, I haven't read any articles about it so I might not know what I'm talking about. I'm speaking in general here.

And what about that fellow who bit another player on the shoulder? What is wrong with people today? Put sport back into sport, I say.Maggie x

What is it that American's freedom of speech ensures? I was quite possibly erroneously under the impression that it would protect from government interference. And since the NBA doesn't represent government, I see them as having every right (and reason) to act as they did. Many damaging things can be said under the guise of opinion.

That being said, it was a fine piece with a point of view (albeit not necessarily your own) rarely shared. I think the Herald should have gone with it. ;)

I am, among other things...

My actual name is Jim Sullivan, but I'll answer to Jim, Jimmy, Sully, Suldog, Laroooooo, or Your Prescription Is Ready. Despite all evidence to the contrary found within these pages, I am a professional writer.